According to perverted faculty argument homosexuality is wrong but still it is not justified why in major religions such Judaism, Christianity and Islam it is counted as a very grave sin (punishable by death on the same rank as of murder).

Another issue is that how we should treat people with such disorders? As far as I have heard from my secular friends the clinical therapies are not successful at all or lead to suicide, depression as so on.

Re: Homosexuality

It's a weakness of some presentations of the perverted faculty argument that gravity is generally an afterthought, and it's not clear how the argument factors it in. It often feels like one is, by the skin of one's teeth, managing to show that non-marital sexual activity is wrong, a conclusion which so many find implausible already--how could one go further to say that it's very wrong?

The answer Feser gives, the substance of which has to be right if PFA is right, is that it attacks a very important good, for sexuality is very important to human life. More liberal sexual ethicists will disagree with this. They'll say that sex is really a private matter and an opportunity for having some fun; it can lead to children if you want it to, but there are ways of preventing that these days. (Feser responded once in a blog post to a representative expression of this attitude from Peter Singer.)

I think Feser is correct on this point, and it explains, perhaps, why the disconnect between traditionalists and liberals in sexual ethics is not just a matter of whether homosexuality is wrong (so that if it's wrong, it could only be a rather trivial fault). Sex and childbearing are simply hugely significant, and that it's humanly a very distinctive view to think that it doesn't present any special moral problems. I aluded in a previous post to what Elizabeth Anscombe calls "the celebration of and awe before procreation and pregnancy." These are events that have been almost uniformly ritualized in human culture. That people can now look on them with horror and dread is indicative of a kind of blindness to the most human of things.

All of that said, gravity is a rather vague topic outside of theological contexts. The division between venial and mortal sin in Catholicism is a theological distinction; a mortal sin is a sin which leads to death (1 John 5:16-17), which is taken to mean the death of the spiritual life, the death of the principle of the spiritual life, and thus the death of the theological virtue of charity. Those are the sins which are contrary to God's law (rather than merely beside it). So if you don't have an explicit law, that major division in gravity doesn't come up.

I don't think that's to say that there is nothing to say about gravity without theology, but it's going to be vague: this is a very important good, central to human flourishing; that is not.

And all of that said, I don't think homosexual activity is as grave as murder, nor do I think it should be punishable by death.

Re: Homosexuality

@nojoum"Another issue is that how we should treat people with such disorders? As far as I have heard from my secular friends the clinical therapies are not successful at all or lead to suicide, depression as so on."

Look up the organization NARTH. They are a secular organization composed of professional scientists.

Re: Homosexuality

@nojoumAs far as I've ever known, in Judaism, the law about stoning homosexuals was part of ceremonial purity, although that's a pointless thing for me to mention; if God commanded stoning, surely the offense remained very serious in itself. I like Greg's explanation for what makes it so bad: it's not only counter to the Divine and Natural laws, but it concerns a very serious subject matter. That still raises a big question for me: can we know by pure human reason that homosexuality is death-worthy? Because that has some ramifications that scare me!

Wikiedia wrote:

According to Wikipedia, we have Death penalty in the following countries:The report found that thirteen countries (or parts of them) impose the death penalty for “Same-sex sexual acts”. These countries comprise 6% of the countries in the United Nations. Of these thirteen countries, four are in Africa: Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, and Mauritania. Nine are in Asia: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, UAE, Iraq, and Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) territories.

Note: I am in no way suggesting that Daesh have a correct interpretation of Islam but this is just to have an accurate quote.

You might still want to argue that these states have manipulated and corrupted the true Islamic interpretation but I think still in Islam homosexuality is a grave immoral behavior and is strongly condemned and thus we need to have some discussion in this regard.

Greg wrote:

I think Feser is correct on this point, and it explains, perhaps, why the disconnect between traditionalists and liberals in sexual ethics is not just a matter of whether homosexuality is wrong (so that if it's wrong, it could only be a rather trivial fault). Sex and childbearing are simply hugely significant, and that it's humanly a very distinctive view to think that it doesn't present any special moral problems. I aluded in a previous post to what Elizabeth Anscombe calls "the celebration of and awe before procreation and pregnancy." These are events that have been almost uniformly ritualized in human culture. That people can now look on them with horror and dread is indicative of a kind of blindness to the most human of things.

All of that said, gravity is a rather vague topic outside of theological contexts. The division between venial and mortal sin in Catholicism is a theological distinction; a mortal sin is a sin which leads to death (1 John 5:16-17), which is taken to mean the death of the spiritual life, the death of the principle of the spiritual life, and thus the death of the theological virtue of charity. Those are the sins which are contrary to God's law (rather than merely beside it). So if you don't have an explicit law, that major division in gravity doesn't come up.

I don't think that's to say that there is nothing to say about gravity without theology, but it's going to be vague: this is a very important good, central to human flourishing; that is not.

And all of that said, I don't think homosexual activity is as grave as murder, nor do I think it should be punishable by death.

I'm surprised that you dont find it punishable by death because death penalty is mentioned in Leviticus as the punishment for homosexuality.I agree with you procreation is one of the most humane activities and it is something to be exceedingly celebrated and enjoyed. But at the same time, it needs some argument to say that homosexuals are intentionally and willfully against having children. So to condemn them for such reason is to me far-fetched.

I think the role of God in human's life is an extremely intricate and difficult problem. People of faith have always this dilemma where they have to choose between following the commonly held beliefs and traditions and in doing so upholding God or going against the former because non-believers have presented somewhat convincing and reasonable arguments. Maybe one way to solve it is that people should start looking for the truth themselves, they should stop blindly following a belief, be it religious beliefs or non-believers' beliefs, which is a difficult and somewhat impractical. Not everyone can do it, not many people have the time or are adept at that doing so, there are psychological difficulties because we have confirmation bias and so on. So at the end of the day, I really dont know how to deal with it in a satisfactorily manner.

Mysterious Brony wrote:

"Another issue is that how we should treat people with such disorders? As far as I have heard from my secular friends the clinical therapies are not successful at all or lead to suicide, depression as so on." Look up the organization NARTH. They are a secular organization composed of professional scientists.

I will take a look at it. But at first sight it seems not be actually secular.

Re: Homosexuality

@nojournYes, I know that NARTH contains some articles that are religious and they do partner with other religious organizations (JONAH). Still, the organization has plenty of articles that are scientific and non-religious.

"Also I'm thinking what would drive a secular organization to provide conversion therapy for homosexuals."

Well, some homosexuals don't want to live the homosexual lifestyle or want to get rid of their homosexual attractions and other organizations don't provide those services, so this organization provides them with those services.

Re: Homosexuality

Mysterious Brony wrote:

@nojournYes, I know that NARTH contains some articles that are religious and they do partner with other religious organizations (JONAH). Still, the organization has plenty of articles that are scientific and non-religious.

"Also I'm thinking what would drive a secular organization to provide conversion therapy for homosexuals."

Well, some homosexuals don't want to live the homosexual lifestyle or want to get rid of their homosexual attractions and other organizations don't provide those services, so this organization provides them with those services.